And, in the context of rape, false allegations are vanishinly rare. In the UK commonly accepted figures say there are 90,000 rapes each year (and the real number is likely to be higher). That's a huge number of people who aren't seeing justice.
There was not only no evidence of any crime committed by the accused, there was evidence of the accusers lying.
A jury, after being presented evidence by both sides, first found the accused not guilty.
Later, a different jury, after being presented evidence by two sides, found the accusers guilty of lying.
What makes you so confident that, after reading an article that is objectively one-sided, you have a better grasp of the situation than the jurors in question?
This absolutely boggles my mind.
Maybe they all have been found not guilty by another jury by now and I just glossed over that fact?
Guilty people are found not guilty, by design, every day.
It's up there with allegations of murder, except that people who are cleared of murder generally face less prejudice and discrimination than people cleared of rape.
Intentionally making false allegations should carry a sentence proportionate to the alleged crime, not to mention compensation for harm done to the reputation of the accused.
Most of these people got off easy.
The article also glosses over the fact that most of them were found guilty by a jury, whereas if the alleged rapists would've been found guilty, nobody would've spared them a second thought or cried foul.